I'm against the moment a business has a legally binding and fiduciary duty to maximize profits for it's shareholders above all else. For example, most people point to health insurance companies as greedy and corrupt, but they are simply doing what they are legally obligated to do on behalf of their investors - maximize profit. Social media algorithms, pharmaceutical companies, our food industry, the list goes on. These corporations are not inherently bad, but when the law demands that they chase dollars above all other considerations, bad things always seem to happen.

@@FightStealDrink I hear you, but I do not believe that is an accurate representation of a corporation’s obligation. The obligation is to act in the best interest of the ownership, as it is with all companies. It just happens to be that millions of owners tend to have one common objective… the pursuit of profit. There are no corporate police that will step in and arrest a board for making a bad business decision (ie, losing money), but there is a court of public opinion that will fire the board and demand preferred action. But this is true for a company owned by millions or just one individual… the interest of the owner(s) is always served. It is an interesting development that younger Millennials and Gen Z appear to put a greater emphasis on the intent of a business rather than pure profit. If this holds as the generations age, you may yet see corporate value reflect corporate VALUES.

You raise an interesting perspective, but you seem to have misunderstood the fundamental premise of the show. The button is for one decision maker to push, to make the decision once for all.

@@ratamacue0320 I understand the premise quite well, but if you need the idea simplified for you I can make time. Button is pushed - the rest of the world now knows that a company has the best algorithm to provide them a " soulmate ". Everyone can still have dates and flings but at a certain point when they want to use the " service " they in essence push their own button to activate the algorithm because they are ready for their " soulmate ". My premise still holds as to the autonomy of the " soulmate ". If you feel my viewpoint is logically flawed, please give reason in your reply.

@@ahickey I don't think they conveyed the idea of individuals pushing their own button to activate the algorithm for them, as you put it. (I'd be interested if you could provide a timestamp for that if you find it, but I understand if you don't want to invest the time.) My understanding was that the corporation selects both the matches and the timing of the pairings. I agree it would have been interesting for them to have focused at least a bit more on the perspectives of unwilling/resentful matches.

@@ratamacue0320 There is no direct time stamp I could point to as I see our understanding of the premise is different. With your view about the corporation having more control in the timing I can differ to your point as I would not foresee them having that much of an omniscient presence... but then again Amazon apparently can figure out that a teenager is pregnant before they even know. I took the premise to be that every person would choose when they wanted to be paired, as opposed to your view of the company doing it for them.

​@@ahickeyI feel like my interpretation is more in keeping with the spirit of the scenario, but without watching again, I can't say for sure whether one of us is right, or if it was left as a presumption for that listener. Thanks.

100% agree. There is so much untapped potential in exploring and defining the parameters of pressing the button. You're absolutely right about the button abolishing fictions of all kinds, including actors, books, etc.

Music would be vastly different if it existed.

Andrew tried to move the subject on but Rex kept pointing out the same thing over and over

I like the obtuse, give me all the obtuse, haha. This is one of those places where I think they actually believe what they say. You may not agree, and often I don't either...but you are hearing what they actually think. I think these kinds of conversations are important.

It's just him. Iv listened to him on podcasts about politics that have as casual a format as this show, and he's this casual with his manner of speech.

@@aceundead4750 Good to know, thank you for the insight.

@@RoarkLaughed I do not doubt that they believe what they say, but that was not the question. Another viewer replied that his view is consistent whether drinking or not ( which went towards answering my question ). I would say " important " is a bit strong of a word to characterize these conversations, but I do appreciate listening to them to glean a better understanding of the two speaking.